Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2019 11:49 PM
18 online now:
Dr Adequate, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (2 members, 16 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,645 Year: 3,682/19,786 Month: 677/1,087 Week: 46/221 Day: 17/29 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2021
22
23242526Next
Author Topic:   Biological classification vs 'Kind'
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 3078 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 316 of 385 (565287)
06-15-2010 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by Percy
06-12-2010 6:15 PM


Re: Mutations and Information
quote:
Kudos for the concession, but is there at least a little voice in the back of your head telling you that you are reaching too many conclusions in the absence of evidence? Most of the other stuff you're saying is just as wrong as your original claim that new information cannot be created through mutation. Remember how you felt when you made that claim? I bet you made it just as confidently as you did your other statements about the YEC model, baranomes and VIGEs.

Could I suggest a strategy of "Inform self first, reach conclusions later."


I'll try to do a little better. However, as I've previously stated I base my conclusions upon the evidence I've reviewed. Being only one person has very limited free time I can take me a while to review evidence. I am open to review specific evidence that's posted here in the discussions I am part of. In fact, this evidence has led me to two nagging 'voice in the back of my head' problems:
1) accelerated radio-isotope decay (as touted by YECs) causing extreme heat.
2) ERV patterns following the phyolgenetic tree.

#1 paticularly is bothersome since I haven't yet seen a reasonable YEC explanation (but I haven't done a lot of searching either). #2 not as much since Borger's baranome hypothesis answers it to some extent (though I intend to give it a closer look). Neither of these is sufficient to sway my belief in YEC - it still seems to fit the evidence that I have reviewed better than darwinian evolution - but maybe you all will change that.

quote:
What was the original prediction and at what rate do they actually occur? I only ask because I think you're repeating something that someone else made up

Sorry...it appears I may have misrepresented this. this is the study I was thinking of. If I understand it correctly, it shows that much of the redundancy in the genome is not due to gene duplication. I was wrong in that it didn't have anything to do with frequency.

quote:
You have got to stop just repeating everything you hear. Possibly the only correct sentence in your entire post was about adding information to the genome. When we can actually sequence the DNA of the bacteria both before and after the new ability and know precisely what mutational changes occurred, what is it that you think the evolutionary model doesn't explain about bacterial mutations and evolution?

Another poor choice of wording on my part. What I meant was: The evolutionary prediction that this type of adaptation requires large amounts of time is falsified by these studies. Therefore, if common ancestry is true - why does it require billions of years to get from the first life to modern life?

quote:
This is great! Finally something that can verified in the here and now. So in these experiments where bacteria rapidly evolve new abilities right there in the lab where we can observe precisely what is going on, you claim that there are VIGEs we could supposedly see that are driving the process. So where is the observational evidence for VIGEs?

Here's the link to a study demonstrating this. Remember: transposons are a type of semi-functional remnant VIGE in Borger's hypothesis.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Percy, posted 06-12-2010 6:15 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 352 by Percy, posted 06-17-2010 8:43 AM BobTHJ has not yet responded

    
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 3078 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 317 of 385 (565295)
06-15-2010 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by Dr Jack
06-13-2010 4:08 AM


quote:
Which is fine; except that it isn't the atheistic subset that hold evolution to be true, it's almost every single biologist. Step outside of biology and look at astrophysics or geology and you find that they too disagree with the YEC notion and, again, it's not just the atheists. Trying to dismiss Evolution as something only atheists believe is simply untrue. Trying to act like Creation is dismissed by only the atheist scientists is also untrue.

It's not atheistic scientists you're disagreeing with, it's just scientists.


Yes, I understand this also. I have only used the term 'atheist' to specifically refer to atheists - not evolutionists. For the quote in question I was referring to abiogenesis - a distinctly atheistic belief - thus I referenced atheists, a subset of darwinists who adhere to that belief. While there may be some crossover I suspect that the vast majority of non-atheistic darwinists are theistic evolutionists - ie: they believe the creation of life at least included some divine element.

quote:
Which is a nice assertion, but that's all. The fact is that scientists aren't dismissing supernatural explanations because they're anti-God or anti-religion, but because they're trying to understand the world around them (and us) and postulating supernatural explanations simply does not help with that

But it does help those of us who have a reason to postulate the supernatural.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Dr Jack, posted 06-13-2010 4:08 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 318 by Coragyps, posted 06-15-2010 10:01 PM BobTHJ has responded

    
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5377
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 318 of 385 (565297)
06-15-2010 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 317 by BobTHJ
06-15-2010 9:50 PM


was referring to abiogenesis - a distinctly atheistic belief -

Huh? God isn't smart enough to use carbonyl sulfide to make polypeptides from the amino acids that He made in the solar nebula?

If you think a moment, you will likely come to the realization that once there was no life on this planet. Now there is. Abiogenesis is "life from no life," specifically, cellular/protocellular/viral life. So you theists are stuck with abiogenesis, unless your Creator was of one of those forms.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by BobTHJ, posted 06-15-2010 9:50 PM BobTHJ has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 339 by BobTHJ, posted 06-16-2010 4:26 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

    
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 3078 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 319 of 385 (565317)
06-16-2010 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by Percy
06-13-2010 6:19 AM


quote:
YEC "scientists" did not predict the Neanderthals were not a human ancestor. They simply asserted that humans have no evolutionary ancestors. Baraminology makes the identical claim. If baraminology is science then tell us based on what evidence does it make this claim.

Yes, YEC scientists did predict Neanderthal to be human - and have for some time. Here's a quote from a 2003 AiG article:

Biblical creationists, on the other hand, believe that there were no ‘subhumans’ at any time. Neandertal fossils are all post-Flood, so these bones are believed to represent just one more group of people which split off from other groups following the Babel dispersion.

I know the prediction goes further back than that too.

If you're looking for a more scientific looking prediction, here's an article from Dr. Borger who uses the "indicator gene" method (the one he referenced in the baramin hypothesis that was briefly discussed) to predict neanderthal's inclusion in the human baramin:

The recent DNA analysis of the Neandertaler, who according to evolutionary timescales evolved around 400 thousand years ago, showed they carried the exact same FOXP2 protein (deduced from the DNA sequence) as modern humans, including the N and S at position 304 and 326, respectively.4 In addition to morphological and physiological evidence for the vocal tract, including the modern hyoid bone,5 molecular biology is now providing support that Neandertals were fully equipped for speaking complex languages. The FOXP2 genes found in Neandertals therefore show that they were Homo sapiens. These findings are entirely in accord with the creationist’s stance that Neandertals were fully human (post-Flood) inhabitants of Europe and Asia.

quote:
Can I presume that if you're willing to accept the findings of science that Neanderthal is not an evolutionary ancestor of humans that you're also willing to accept the findings of science that Homo egaster *is* our evolutionary ancestor?

Here's an AiG review of Wood, B. and Collard, M., The human genus, Science 284(5411):65–71, 1999. I can't access the original article without a subscription - but unless AiG is misrepresenting the findings the study showed H. Ergaster to be completely human with the exception of brain size - which was more ape-like. Since small brains have been found in modern humans without impairing function I don't see any reason to consider this a human ancestor. I'm curious if there is DNA available for sequencing for H. Ergaster - if there is I predict that the FOXP2 protein will be identical to modern humans, thus confirming H. Ergaster is part of the human baramin.

Edited by BobTHJ, : fix tag formatting of link

Edited by BobTHJ, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Percy, posted 06-13-2010 6:19 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 325 by Coyote, posted 06-16-2010 9:47 AM BobTHJ has responded
 Message 360 by Percy, posted 06-17-2010 9:27 PM BobTHJ has not yet responded

    
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 3078 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 320 of 385 (565321)
06-16-2010 2:56 AM
Reply to: Message 295 by cavediver
06-13-2010 3:53 PM


Re: Getting down to details
quote:
Yes, he's closed it. Unsurprisingly, quite a few topics are closed down on his blog. I need to find an open one to start dismantling his rhetoric that he has been "persuaded" that decay rates are variable by the "evidence"

FYI, Wile's blog auto-closes comments on posts older than about a month. I've seen him mention before that if you want to comment on an old post to just post your comment to one of the more recent posts and he would address it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by cavediver, posted 06-13-2010 3:53 PM cavediver has not yet responded

    
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 3078 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 321 of 385 (565322)
06-16-2010 3:12 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by Percy
06-13-2010 6:28 AM


quote:
Translation:

Everything I say is getting challenged and I don't have any evidence to support what I'm saying, so I'm just going to start ignoring posts that pose inconvenient questions.


I wouldn't normally respond to a post such as this - but I thought I ought to clarify something. I will respond to any post that:
1) Contains evidence (particularly if backed by references) that either refutes a YEC position I have advocated or advances a darwinian position I have attempted to refute (so long as it is on topic).
2) Asks a non-rhetorical question of me which I have not yet answered in the current thread (though my response may be "I don't know").

What I can not do however is continue to respond over and over again to posts that attempt to 'gotcha!' me on some silly issue, or that ask me to describe something I have already described in detail more than once. Some examples are:

1) Discussions on why I believe naturalistic science to be flawed
2) Assuming I think all darwinists are atheists
3) Proclaiming that my religious beliefs force me to be a YEC

You are certainly welcome to disagree with me on these issues, but I can no longer respond. I'm working hard to get caught up on the legitimate responses to my posts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Percy, posted 06-13-2010 6:28 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 353 by Percy, posted 06-17-2010 9:06 AM BobTHJ has not yet responded

    
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 3078 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 322 of 385 (565326)
06-16-2010 3:44 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by Taq
06-14-2010 1:08 PM


Re: Getting down to details
quote:
But that's just it. There is no single nested hierarchy for automobiles. You can have two Ford trucks, one with a Cummins deisel and the other with a Ford engine. You can have a Chevy and Ford with the same tires and the same airbags. Depending on what features you pick you will get a different nested hierarchy. This is not so with life. Life fits in a single nested hierarchy. There are no animals with teats and feathers, as one example.

But there are aquatic and flying mammals that both use echolocation. And when I brought that up you told me that we don't classify based on a single feature but on the overall similarity. Based on overall similarity I could build a nested hierarchy of vehicles.

quote:
Without common ancestry there is no reason that separately created species would even share the same genetic molecule, much less the same genes.

Yes there is....common design. Every other level of nature shows order in similar structures - why would we not find it at the genetic or morphological levels?

I'm adding common design to my list of topics that I've explained too many times to warrant further responses.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Taq, posted 06-14-2010 1:08 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 323 by cavediver, posted 06-16-2010 3:57 AM BobTHJ has responded
 Message 330 by Taq, posted 06-16-2010 11:16 AM BobTHJ has not yet responded

    
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1723 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 323 of 385 (565327)
06-16-2010 3:57 AM
Reply to: Message 322 by BobTHJ
06-16-2010 3:44 AM


Re: Getting down to details
Yes there is....common design. Every other level of nature shows order in similar structures

But that is not common design! That is order based upon physics. The similarity between stars is not common design - it is a necessity based upon the Standard Model. The similarity between mountains is not common design - it is a necessity based upon geophysics. The similarity between snowflakes is not common design - it is a necessity based upon the structure of water and intermolecular forces.

Or were you refering to something else?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by BobTHJ, posted 06-16-2010 3:44 AM BobTHJ has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 341 by BobTHJ, posted 06-16-2010 5:21 PM cavediver has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18312
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 324 of 385 (565338)
06-16-2010 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 306 by Wounded King
06-15-2010 9:55 AM


Re: a deeper understanding
Wounded King writes:

Taken simply as a term there are in fact several well characterised Variation Inducing Genetic Elements (VIGEs).

I had done a cursory search for the term at Google and Wikipedia and not found it, so am I correct in interpreting you as saying that while VIGE is not as yet a term used within biology, the genetic object it refers to does actually exist? Or is VIGE a real term?

Your technical lingo was a bit tough to follow, but it was pretty clear that you're saying that VIGEs have played a "significant role in genome evolution." You provided some references, but I'd probably find them tough to follow, too. If Borger is wrong about what he says about VIGEs, how do we know that?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by Wounded King, posted 06-15-2010 9:55 AM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 328 by Wounded King, posted 06-16-2010 10:49 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 186 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 325 of 385 (565349)
06-16-2010 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 319 by BobTHJ
06-16-2010 2:42 AM


And in reverse???
If you are positing H. ergaster to be a racial variant of H. sapiens that developed after the flood, and most likely after Babel, do you realize the implications?

You are proposing the exact same type of evolutionary change that scientists propose except thousands of times faster and in reverse!


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 319 by BobTHJ, posted 06-16-2010 2:42 AM BobTHJ has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 342 by BobTHJ, posted 06-16-2010 5:23 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 3078 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 326 of 385 (565352)
06-16-2010 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 299 by Taq
06-14-2010 4:21 PM


Re: Life Looks Evolved, Baraminology Looks Useless
quote:
Why would different baramins share any features at all? There is no reason for them too. Why should the human and ape baramine share any features, much less 98% of the DNA? Why should mammals and bacteria use the same tRNA codons if they were created separately?

Again, why isn't this surprising? Isn't this exactly what we should see if common ancestry is true? Or are you saying that we should throw out every DNA paternity test ever done because the two people could have been magically poofed into being?


see "common design"

quote:
If common ancestry is true should we or should we not observe a nested hierarchy? Since we observe a nested hierarchy, why isn't this evidence of common ancestry? Is your only refutation, "Well, they could have been magically poofed into being"? Is your only refutation a what-if fantasy based on supernatural magic?

This is bad logic. Yes common ancestry requires a nested hierarchy, and yes we seem to have an ontological model that looks very similar to a nested hierarchy. However, you need more than that to prove common ancestry - if this weren't the case then scientists would have no reason to go "hoopla!" every time they find a so-called transitional fossil. They are desperate for something to support this massive assumption.

quote:
This is in stark contrast to the theory of evolution which is based on the empirical evidence.

Complete nonsense. The theory of evolution is based upon the opinions of Charles Darwin (and others). You may have evidence that you believe supports it, but that doesn't make it any more evidence based than YEC.

quote:
It originated from the evidence that Darwin discovered on his journeys, most notably on the HMS Beagle.

It originated from Darwin's opinions about nature, which he believed coincided with the evidence.

quote:
Can you name a single scientific advancement that is solely based on divine revelation? From my knowledge, the scientific advances we have today are the product of methodological naturalism, not divine revelation.

Naturalism didn't lead to those advances. An increasing population size and the freedom to pursue science relatively unrestricted of political bonds did. I'll reference AiG's list of creationists agian - if you scroll down you will see that many of the scientists who made significant advances in modern science were creationists. Science didn't advance because of naturalism - it advanced in spite of it.

quote:
What dismal track record? We have more hominid fossils than we ever had the right to expect to have. Using the letters next to each skull can you tell us which belong to the ape baramin and which belong to the human baramin?

If you'd like to discuss this I am happy to. Let's take them one at a time. You pick.

quote:
Important for what? Apologetics?

For the continued advancement of science. If/when the day comes that common ancestry is discarded as a viable theory it would be nice to have some of the classification work of baramins complete so no further time is wasted.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by Taq, posted 06-14-2010 4:21 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 327 by Coyote, posted 06-16-2010 10:45 AM BobTHJ has responded
 Message 331 by Taq, posted 06-16-2010 11:24 AM BobTHJ has responded
 Message 332 by Tanypteryx, posted 06-16-2010 11:34 AM BobTHJ has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 186 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 327 of 385 (565355)
06-16-2010 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 326 by BobTHJ
06-16-2010 10:33 AM


Off the deep end
With this post you've apparently stopped pretending to be looking for the evidence and are just peddling your YEC beliefs.

quote:
This is in stark contrast to the theory of evolution which is based on the empirical evidence.

Complete nonsense. The theory of evolution is based upon the opinions of Charles Darwin (and others). You may have evidence that you believe supports it, but that doesn't make it any more evidence based than YEC.


If YEC is so evidence-based, why are the only adherents to this belief biblical literalists? Why is YEC not found in areas of the world where the bible is not read? The evidence should be the same.

The answer is that YEC stems from the bible and not the scientific evidence. The scientific evidence overwhelmingly contradicts the YEC belief.

The theory of evolution, on the other hand, stems from the scientific evidence. How far do you think Darwin's hypothesis would have gone if the evidence contradicted it? It would have died a quiet death. Instead, as time passes, more and more evidence is found which supports the theory.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by BobTHJ, posted 06-16-2010 10:33 AM BobTHJ has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 344 by BobTHJ, posted 06-16-2010 5:34 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2175 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 328 of 385 (565359)
06-16-2010 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 324 by Percy
06-16-2010 7:56 AM


Re: a deeper understanding
Or is VIGE a real term?

VIGE isn't a term used in biology, it is Borger's own coining which covers ...

Borger writes:

endogenous retroviruses, insertion sequences, LINEs, SINEs, micro-satellites, transposons

Borger makes a serious of totally unsupported assertions which distinguish his understanding of VIGE's from mainstream science.

Firstly he postulates that rather than endogenous retroviruses being the result of RNA viruses being incorporated into human germ line cells, instead RNA viruses are the result of the ERV type VIGE becoming independent of its created place within the 'baranome'. Borger says that this solve the 'RNA virus paradox', a paradox no one outside of creationists and IDists has ever noticed apart from in one paper (Holmes, 2003) which also puts forward several solutions to this apparent paradox. So as seems to be habitual Borger simply throws out the current model and replaces it with one of his own which has nothing to support it.

He also decides to totally throw out all we know about variation which occurs independently of his 'VIGE' mediated mechanisms as well as totally ignoring all the multiple examples of 'VIGE' induced varaition which have absolutely no effect or are highly detrimental, all the evidence in fact that shows that the vast majority of activity of these elements is as random with respect to fitness as any other mutational factor.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 324 by Percy, posted 06-16-2010 7:56 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
AdminModulous
Administrator (Idle past 184 days)
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 329 of 385 (565362)
06-16-2010 11:10 AM


The topic and subtitle names.
Everybody has a responsibility for topic focus. Can everyone please try to move the topic back towards its purpose? Since Bob has joined the topic has changed a little bit, by mutual consent to discussing whether barminology fairs better than the consensus classification scheme by some standard or another.

If the person you are debating with (whichever side of the fence) raises a point you think might be contributing to topic drift either redirect it back on topic somehow, ignore it, refer your opponent to an on-topic thread where you have posted your response but please try not to fill pages and pages of this thread up with discussions on the origin of the theory or vestigial organs, etc. I appreciate this kind of drift is perfectly natural, but a concerted effort can bring things back into relevance is needed.

And Bob - I don't know your experience with forums previous, but this one lives and dies on topic focus. Experience has shown us that discussions can become useless noise if there is no focus. Before you write a reply - consider if it really contributes towards the discussion of consensus classification vs barminology.

Until another moderator happens to take over, I'm officially dropping out of this thread as a participant and will be keeping an eye on things from here on in.

Finally - check your subtitle threads. Some of them are quite old now.

Please do not reply to this message. If you have any issue regarding it, or any other issues with this discussion - please post a message to Report discussion problems here: No.2


    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7673
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 330 of 385 (565365)
06-16-2010 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 322 by BobTHJ
06-16-2010 3:44 AM


Re: Getting down to details
But there are aquatic and flying mammals that both use echolocation. And when I brought that up you told me that we don't classify based on a single feature but on the overall similarity. Based on overall similarity I could build a nested hierarchy of vehicles.

Echolocation is not a morphological feature. It is a behavior.

Yes there is....common design.

There is no reason that an omnipotent and omniscient supernatural designer would reuse designs. For an all powerful being starting from scratch involves the same effort as reusing design. Therefore, there is no expectation for common design.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by BobTHJ, posted 06-16-2010 3:44 AM BobTHJ has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
2021
22
23242526Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019